2 min read
I've been thinking about how The Internet Course that we ran for a few semesters aligns with open pedagogy. It was a for-credit, tuition-bearing, face-to-face course, so perhaps I should hesitate to call it open. Some of the course content was freely available online and some was licensed content restricted to the campus community. Some of the products of the course are openly available online, but some of the intellectual output occurred in in-class discussions and presentations.
But it was very open, in a different way, in that we opened the direction of the course to student input. We came up with a framework for how the class would approach the topic, but the students determined the direction of the course, through their interests, and the content, through their research. We used the course hub to engage in as much open practice as we could, using the internet to learn and teach about the internet. We had talked about using only openly accessible content, but my feeling was that that would shortchange the students, since part of their tuition paid for library content.
This is all very much in line with the student as producer model that Christina wrote about. It didn't involve OERs and it wasn't an open course, but it did open the process and engage an open environment.
2 min read
I was going to blog about Rudy Leon’s take on the Bohannon Sting a while ago, but never got around to finishing my thoughts. (I do that a lot.) The editorial considered the Sting and its implications for information literacy instruction. Since so many allegedly peer reviewed journals accepted an obviously bogus paper, Leon says the peer review designation cannot be used as a measure of quality anymore. How then do we teach students to evaluate the quality of articles?
I think that calling this a "crisis" overstates the case. Peer review has always had its flaws. Articles get retracted. Theories spread, getting championed with little rigor, and are later found to be highly questionable. I've seen articles on MOOC research and wondered how they ever made it through peer review.
Bohannon’s back in the news, this time for putting faux scientific research by a bunch of journalists, none of whom bothered to ask even basic questions about how the research was done. On the bright side, some people in those comments that you’re never supposed to read did ask some good questions, so maybe there’s hope for us after all.
Asking questions is the important part. Who wrote this? Why should I listen to them? Why was it written? That’s just basic info lit, people. It doesn’t go away.